CBD, BCI, Kunz: Add Little Brown to Endangered Species List

[PYoungbaer]

The Center for Biological Diversity, Bat Conservation International, Dr. Thomas Kunz, and others have asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to examine whether or not the Little Brown Bat (Myotis Lucifugus) should be added to the federal Endangered Species List.

This follows the study releases earlier this year predicting a regional extinction (extirpation) in the Northeast in as few as 16 years, if mortality rates continue as they have. USFWS can make a determination that the bat is endangered regionally, as well as more broadly.

As the press release states, USFWS has taken no action yet on CBD's petitions last January for adding the Eastern Small-footed bat (Myotis Leibii) nor the Northern Long-eared bat (Myotis Septentrionalis) to the ESL. Here's the press release:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/little-brown-bat-12-16-2010.html

[PYoungbaer]

Here is the full study/petition:

http://www.caves.org/WNS/WNS%20Kunz,%20CBD,%20BCI%20LBB%20petition%20Dec.%202010.pdf

Note the call for an "Emergency" listing, which has the possibility of occurring much quicker than the normal lengthy timeframe.

[Batgirl]

I'm just not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, LBB's ARE facing extinction, but so are all the other Myotis bat species. Why not just list them all? Why LBB's and not Pips? Here in TAG, I see very few LBB's. Pips seem to be way more populous and are also endanger of extinction due to WNS. So why not them too? On the other hand, what does listing accomplish? There is no cure and no treatment, so listing them doesn't really provide a way of saving them. Plus there are not enough FWS biologists to monitor this species too. Will this allow FWS to hire more biologists? My guess is that listing may provide more funding to be released? But what additional funds would be made available by this listing that isn't already being dumped into the crisis? The country is trillions in debt - there isn't any money. So where do they suppose this money will come from? Are they saying that the country should go even deeper in debt? Why can't they find additional funding from wildlife conservancies or philanthropic organizations? I'm just not sure what listing will accomplish. All the Federally owned caves are already closed - what will listing change?

In addition, the economic impacts will certainly be consequential. As they mentioned, wind energy development will certainly come to a hault which will not only cause resources to be directed towards issuance of taking permits (ie destruction of bat habitat via unnecessary paperwork) but will also cost billions of dollars in development potential for cleaner energy to go down the drain, not to mention the impact to local economies. Don't get me wrong, something needs to be done to protect them, but I would rather see them concentrate on finding a treatment or cure than clogging the pipeline with guano.

[BrianC]

I'm just not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, LBB's ARE facing extinction, but so are all the other Myotis bat species. Why not just list them all? Why LBB's and not Pips? Here in TAG, I see very few LBB's. Pips seem to be way more populous and are also endanger of extinction due to WNS. So why not them too? On the other hand, what does listing accomplish? There is no cure and no treatment, so listing them doesn't really provide a way of saving them. Plus there are not enough FWS biologists to monitor this species too. Will this allow FWS to hire more biologists? My guess is that listing may provide more funding to be released? But what additional funds would be made available by this listing that isn't already being dumped into the crisis? The country is trillions in debt - there isn't any money. So where do they suppose this money will come from? Are they saying that the country should go even deeper in debt? Why can't they find additional funding from wildlife conservancies or philanthropic organizations? I'm just not sure what listing will accomplish. All the Federally owned caves are already closed - what will listing change?

In addition, the economic impacts will certainly be consequential. As they mentioned, wind energy development will certainly come to a hault which will not only cause resources to be directed towards issuance of taking permits (ie destruction of bat habitat via unnecessary paperwork) but will also cost billions of dollars in development potential for cleaner energy to go down the drain, not to mention the impact to local economies. Don't get me wrong, something needs to be done to protect them, but I would rather see them concentrate on finding a treatment or cure than clogging the pipeline with guano.

I was going to state what you are asking. My concern is, in order to list a species, doesn't there need to be a way to stop the spread and a reversal of loss? We know this to be impossible at best.

[wyandottecaver]

I have the opposite concern. listing LBB as regionally endangered in the NE makes sense. LIsting species that are still quite common throughout much of their range doesn't, unless you have a plan to DO something with that listing. The DO here is obvious....allow the USFWS and States to extend it's reach even deeper into private property. The listing won't give them much actual power, but a lot of bully power. The effects on wind energy wont be as bad as you think. Those guys have plenty enough senators in their pockets to get incidental take permits handed out like candy. Will it cost more? yep. Thats why they add zeroes to your electric bill

[PYoungbaer]

Here's CBD's Mollie Matteson talking about what she thinks listing will mean for the Little Brown Bat:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2010-12-28

[BrianC]

Here's CBD's Mollie Matteson talking about what she thinks listing will mean for the Little Brown Bat:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2010-12-28

The blog does site the need for a recovery plan, I can't find one other than the stated critical habitat study. I can't find the attached study? The reference to the membrane study is not useful as that study is, as what the study states, only opinion. The USFWS has the recovery plan in its hands for the plan to be considered. Does it have one?

[BrianC]

Here's CBD's Mollie Matteson talking about what she thinks listing will mean for the Little Brown Bat:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2010-12-28

If this does go through, I hope every caver realizes that all caves will be closed permanently. With or without the human vector, as this will make no difference. We must show that the bats will fair similarly with or without humans going in caves. Reference to the years of caving with bats flourishing year after year. Cavers are actually helping bats flourish by frequent trips to caves in many areas that would otherwise be destroyed, and bats destroyed, by local yahoos. The key here is, Bats do better and get prioritized for their good, only from cavers that frequent the caves where bats also frequent.

[Batgirl]

First of all, listing means that the federal government is required to take conservation measures to prevent harm, and support recovery. Without listing, there are few regulatory mechanisms to compel the government to pro-actively protect and restore particular species. It is especially important to have this tool for species conservation when the species is controversial, obscure, or underappreciated, or when protecting the species could inconvenience someone or cost money. The law provides a means of protecting those (in this case, imperiled species) that would otherwise have no "voice" in our political and legal system.

Blah, Blah, Blah......No Treatment, No Cure means no way of protecting them. I think the real point of this is to give the federal government a longer reach to (as Todd says) bully and strong arm private landowners to close access to their caves.

Second, this accountability means that the government must show what it is doing to protect the species, and in order to take action, usually some amount of resources must be devoted to the effort. Listing usually brings funding for conservation measures. In the case of the little brown bat, one of the most pressing needs is research on white-nose syndrome, and to date, this has been inadequately funded, at best.

Everyone is already doing everything they can and there is already unprecedented amounts of money being dumped into this crisis. Where is this "magical" money going to come from? Perhaps if they (CBD) would stop filing lawsuits, FWS could devote more resources (money) into the real crisis instead of having answering their stupid petitions.

Third, critical habitat for the species is usually designated. Species need places to forage, reproduce, and carry out other vital aspects of their life cycle. In the case of the little brown bat and other bat species affected by white-nose syndrome, they need safe places to hibernate. Designation of critical habitat for the little brown bat would protect crucial sites for its survival and recovery. As the attached paper describes, critical habitat is a great aid to species' recovery.

And just where and how do they think this will be accomplished? LBB bats are not as particular about their habitat as greys or Indiana's and they often hibernate solitarily. At least that is what I have witnessed. Maybe someone can correct me here and expand on this?

Fourth, listing of a species is often followed by the development of a recovery plan. This is a "map" for how the species will be protected and nurtured back to a stable, healthy population level. The attached paper also addresses how species with recovery plans fare better than those without.

FWS already has a plan for managing WNS, how will a separate plan devoted to LBB help?

[PYoungbaer]

FWS already has a plan for managing WNS, how will a separate plan devoted to LBB help?

Indeed. The draft National WNS Plan's Section 6, "Conservation and Recovery (of Affected Bat Species)" is in many ways redundant of what would occur with listing and identification of critical habitat under the ESA. The draft Plan would seem to claim authority to enact and enforce such recovery activities without going through the hurdles of the ESA. That's one of the reasons the NSS' formal comments stated that we did not find such authority in the current statutes, and asked USFWS to enunciate and cite references.